President Obama speech fails to sway lawmakers

The Senate had been scheduled to vote on a military strike this week. | Reuters

“I support the president’s decision to delay a vote seeking authorization for the use of military force from Congress in order to pursue a diplomatic solution,” Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) said in a post-speech statement. “After several intelligence briefings, I remain skeptical that a limited U.S. military strike will be effective in diminishing Assad’s ability to carry out a chemical weapons attack or deter his willingness to use weapons of mass destruction in the future.”

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said he will continue to try to work on a use-of-force resolution that can garner more support from lawmakers.

Text Size

-

+

reset

“Tonight, I believe the President outlined a responsible path to a credible diplomatic solution,” he said in a statement. “I will work with my Senate colleagues to craft a bipartisan resolution that includes tight deadlines and which allows unannounced, even intrusive, inspections by international observers.”

But some lawmakers expressed doubts about trying to work with Russia.

“Of course, we should pursue this option, but let’s not forget with whom we are dealing,” Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), who opposes a strike, said in a statement after the speech. “Any such resolution must necessarily involve Syria disclosing all of its chemical weapons, immediately allowing their removal and destruction and allowing ongoing inspections to assure compliance. Such an agreement must be prompt, binding, verifiable and subject to predetermined sanctions for non-compliance.”

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) said in an appearance on CNN that it remains unclear whether Russia would stop efforts to block a resolution in the United Nations.

“I believe that we’ll have to see whether this diplomatic effort is real… I’m skeptical,” Menendez said.

He added that lawmakers who had been disinclined to support Obama prior to this diplomatic effort might be more willing to support a use-of-force resolution if those efforts fail, and the president again seeks authorization from Congress.

Menendez said: “I think it [the diplomatic efforts] strengthens the president’s hand in the vote that will be pursued here in the Congress.”

After his speech, Obama won some praise from those who don’t support military intervention.

“I share President Obama’s outrage at the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and applaud him for speaking directly to the American people tonight,” Sen. Rich Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said in statement. “I remain concerned about the resolution now before the Senate authorizing the use of military force. It is too broadly written, lacks international support, and risks entangling us in Syria’s protracted civil war.”

Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who is running against Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) in 2014, said he remains opposed to a strike.

“The President said he’d hold military action,” Cassidy said in a statement after the speech. “That seems wise. That said, on the issue of force, after a week of attending classified briefings, researching the opinions of experts and speaking to constituents, I oppose military action in Syria. The lives of U.S. servicemen and women and U.S. military assets should only be engaged when there are clear and defined American interests as part of an overarching strategy. This is not the case.”